Individuals vs Group

[Parts]

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

Meh, nothing wrong with changing the subject, but don't see this as a situation of crimes of church leaders inspired by the government, or lower level church leaders possibly doing something about the atrocities of higher level church leaders. It's about shepherds leading their own sheep.

I never liked the Shepard sheep analogy due to the fact while the Shepard does indeed care for them he almost always in the end leads them to slaughter. 

[RageBeoulve]

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

Meh, nothing wrong with changing the subject, but don't see this as a situation of crimes of church leaders inspired by the government, or lower level church leaders possibly doing something about the atrocities of higher level church leaders. It's about shepherds leading their own sheep.

I never liked the Shepard sheep analogy due to the fact while the Shepard does indeed care for them he almost always in the end leads them to slaughter.

We are often lead to slaughter, Parts.

I don't like the analogy because the shepard of it does a shitty job of caring for the sheep. A REAL sheep herder would do an very good job of caring for their sheep. In this analogy, the shepard can do a horrible job of it and still be totally worshipped.

[Jack]

I never liked the Shepard sheep analogy due to the fact while the Shepard does indeed care for them he almost always in the end leads them to slaughter.

Have you ever read revelations? Always liked the shepherd and sheep, and black sheep who bleat about wolves in shepherds clothing. Though have been annoyed by people who call me sheeple. Some people think they're not a sheep because they're a black sheep, and get mad about the sheeple calling the sheep black. Though if they're not a sheep, not a wolf, and not a shepherd, then that makes them the prophet. Now thinking of wolfish, lazarus, the wolf in Jack's clothing, and the importance of being Jack. Where's that guy been anyway?

[Gopher Gary]

 

[Pyraxis]

Now thinking of wolfish, lazarus, the wolf in Jack's clothing, and the importance of being Jack. Where's that guy been anyway?

I'll let him know that he is being inquired after.



 

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Islam specifically encourages it though.

Really? I notice how you've still not replied to my earlier post, so would you mind addressing both this and that earlier one?

After reading it, I came to the conclusion that it's one of 2 things.  1) a piece of deloberate sophistry you posted as a test to see how much of it I could refute.  or  2) something I said triggered your psychological defense mechanisms and it's always a waste of time to argue with a persons defense mechanisms.

Either way, I see nothing to be gained by responding. By defending religious psychopathy, you've bet on the wrong horse. It's that simple.

I'm glad you found an easy way out. My post was not something you could easily refute; posting blame is always so much easier.

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

Didn't realize that's what was being discussed, but sure why not, the queen led it, while the pope initially tried to stop it and then changed his mind. They were both influential and causational, but this isn't a situation of the Church being in a position of apposing a ruling government, so difficult to compare. The government isn't trying to prevent the Islamic church from taking a stand against their own extremist folowers. People in positions of power are the only ones with the power to do anything, except for maybe the general public turning vigilante and rioting in the streets. If organizational leaders aren't willing to lead organizations in the direction they publicly claim to be leading them, then it's left to the public to determine if what's being said is actually what's being done.

I'm not following, I must admit. Are we talking about the same thing?

[odeon]

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.

Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations. I also believe that they know perfectly well that they have to be rather vocal about it since, regardless of actual blame, the actions of those few affect them and their religion.

[odeon]

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

Meh, nothing wrong with changing the subject, but don't see this as a situation of crimes of church leaders inspired by the government, or lower level church leaders possibly doing something about the atrocities of higher level church leaders. It's about shepherds leading their own sheep.

I never liked the Shepard sheep analogy due to the fact while the Shepard does indeed care for them he almost always in the end leads them to slaughter.

A more fitting analogy in this case is the shepherd slaughtering someone else's sheep.

['andersom']

I can not imagine a single group that will have no absurd and violent members.

Certainly not, but if groups actually want to be disassociated from their own vigilante terrorists, then the leaders of those groups have to do something about it, other than simply saying, we do not support... because that's seldom easy to believe.

And who are the leaders, in this case?

The 'organizations' making official public statements, in your original post.

So, following your logic, if this had been the good ole middle ages, the local priests in Sweden and England should have done something about the Spanish Inquisition?

Given the state of communications and travel in that time period I would say that is not a very good example
Also the human rights aspect was not even though of yet back then to any extent.  Comparing different time periods in this way is almost  always flawed by the differences in culture between them 

The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.

Having said that, I believe that the leaders in question do everything they can to fight extremism in their congregations. I also believe that they know perfectly well that they have to be rather vocal about it since, regardless of actual blame, the actions of those few affect them and their religion.

I see leaders, and Muslim individuals stand up against extremism. Just like there are also more going for the extremist pov. Would not be surprised if the aggression will shift more towards average Muslims not wanting to agree with extremism. It is important to get the average Muslim as integrated as can be, and safe.
The split between extremist and average is not only happening for Muslims.

I'm not that optimistic about the near future.

[Pyraxis]

Yes, it's been disturbing to read about things like a part of China recently cracking down on people wearing burqas. France actually has similar rules in places like schools. Why? Why would an otherwise freedom-loving nation do something like that? (France, not China. I would expect that behavior from China, sadly, and it may distract terrorist attention from the rest of the world to focus on conflicts there.) That's the kind of thing I mean by having respect for religion. Of all the things you could target, you pick something that's an important symbol to a religious minority and matters far more to them than it does to you?

['andersom']

Can see why people in schools and in public functions need visible faces. The amount of burqas has increased massively the past few decades, also among people who do not have a burqa tradition. It has become a statement beyond the tradition most of the wearers come from. But, prohibiting an hijab does not make sense to me.

Unless you do it the German way. In some states any expression of religion or political preference is forbidden in schools and for people with public jobs. An anti fracking badge on a schoolbag could get you expelled. It is a big limitation of freedom. Still not as much as a school uniform though.

[Jack]

I'm not following, I must admit. Are we talking about the same thing?

It's hard to tell when the subject changes. Seemed to be talking about state sanctioned murder led by government and enacted by the church, and possibly if lower ranking leaders should have taking a stand against higher ranking leaders of their own church. Though the question did seem to possibly be as simple as, should one take a stand against another taking a stand. Either way, my answer is sufficient as, sure why not.

A more fitting analogy in this case is the shepherd slaughtering someone else's sheep.

Appears to be more like sheep killing sheep of a different herd.

[Jack]

A more fitting analogy in this case is the shepherd slaughtering someone else's sheep.

Appears to be more like sheep killing sheep of a different herd.

Just realized you might have been referencing the change of subject, which that would be an appropriate analogy.

[Jack]

The point is not as much what was, or is, possible, but rather if it's reasonable to blame one isolated group for the actions of another where their only common denominator is an admission of faith.

Not sure if it's even about reasonable blame, but reasonable fear. Reasonable fear is something that can be applied to a number of scenarios concerning so-called isolated actions groups, not only religious ones.